Who are the parties? Who brought the action? In what court did the case originate? Who won at the trial-court level? What is the appellate history of the case?
1. Procedure. Who are the parties? Who brought the action? In what court did the case originate? Who won at the trial-court level? What is the appellate history of the case?
2. Facts. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?
3. Issues. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?
4. Holding. What is the court’s precise holding (decision)? What is its rationale for that decision? Do you agree with that rationale?
5. Implications. What does the case mean for healthcare today? What were its implications when the decision was announced? How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications? What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?
Requirements: N/A
The Court Decides Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital 323 F.2d 959 (4th Cir.1963) (en bane) Sobeloff, Chief Judge The threshold question in this appeal áis á [Because theá complaint challenges’the whether the activities of the two defendants, constitutionality of a federal statute and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital and Wesley á affects the public interest, the United s Long Community Hospital, of Greensboro, moved to intervene (requested to parti á N?rth Carolina, which participated in the ¥ . in the proceeding.) Its motion for interve Hill-Burton program, are sufficiently imbued _ was granted and th~oughout the proceedi with “state action” to bring them within the the [Federal] Government, unusually en Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment prohibitions . has joined the plaintiffs .¥¥¥ áá against racial discrimination. Beyond this , ¥ ‘: ¥ initial inquiry lies the question of the consti-. Factual Background, tutionality of a portion of the Hill-Burton Act. ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ . _ . ¥ ¥ ¥ Because of the importance of these ques-The claims of racial discrimination tions the court, on its own motion, has heard á. as the District Court found, “clearly estat,.: the appeal en bane. [This means that the-á’ á á-lished.” In fact the hospitals’ applications appeal was considered by all the judges on for federal grants for construction proj the Fourth Circuit, not the usual three-judge . á openly stated, as was permitted by [the panel.] . _. á . _. -Burton] statute, and regulation, ¥¥¥ that The plaintiffs are Negro physicians, _ :á. á . . tain persons in the area will be denied a dentists and patients suing on báehalf ofá . ‘ ‘ . sion to the proposed facilities as patients themselves and other Negrn citizens similarly á, because of race, creed or color.’ These . situated ¥¥¥¥ The basis of their complaint á cations were approved by the North Ca is that the defendants have discriminated, á á, . Medical Care Commission, a state agenCJ: and continue to discriminate, against them -. and the Surgeon General of the United because of their race in violation of_ the Fifth under his statutory authorization. and Fourteenth Amendments to the United á .. á States Constitution. The plaintiffs seek áan’ When this action was commenced, t~ injunction restraining the defendants from United States had appropriated $1,269, continuing to deny Negro physicians and den-to the Cone Hospital and $1,948,800.00 tists the use of staff facilities on the groundá Long Hospital. ¥¥¥ These appropriations of race; an injunction restraining the defen-the most part were after the Supreme C dants from continuing to deny and abridge landmark decisions in Brown v. Board of admission of patients on the basis of race, cation [the 1954 and 1955 US Supreme ¥¥¥ and a judgment declaring unconstitu-decision that overruled its prior precedellf: tional [the portions of the Hill-Burton Act and and unanimously held that the Fourteen its implementing regulations] which authorize Amendment prohibits states from seg the construction of hospital facilities ¥¥¥ on a students by race] ¥¥¥¥ ‘separate-but-equal’ basis. ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥¥¥
Chapter 1: A Brief History of Law and Medicine The point of present interest is not the equality or lack of equality in ¥separate-but-equal,” but the degree of participation by the national and state governments. [Though, in a footnote, the court cited a 2962 report finding that in North Carolina the hospitals “available to nonwhites were both inferior to those available to whites and more limited.”} does the Constitution stand In the way of the [defendant hospitals’] claimed Immunity but there are powerful countervailing equities in favor of the plaintiffs. Racial discrimina-tion by hospitals visits severe consequences upon Negro physicians and their patients. [In a footnote, the court supports this state-ment by noting that “[r}acial discrimination in medical facilities is at least partly respon-THE LEGAL ISSUE sible for the fact that in North Carolina the ln our view the initial question is ¥¥¥ whether rate of Negro infant mortality is twice the rate the state or the federal governJ!lent, or both, for whites and maternal deaths are five times have become so involved in the conduct of greater.” Furthermore “[e]xclusion of Negro these otherwise private bodies that their physicians from practice in hospitals on activities are also the activities of these gov-account of their race denies them opportuni-ernments and performed under their aegisá ties for professional improvement and has without the private body necessarily becom-á discouraged Negro physicians from practic-ing either their instrumentality or their agentáá.á ing in the cities of the South.”} á áá in a strict sense…. . Giving recognition to its responsibili-[The court recognizes that purely private : ties for public health, the state elected not action would not violate the Constitution, . . to build publicly owned hospitals, which but concludes that there is state actiol1 here, . , . concededly could not have avoided a legal pointing to the “massive use of public funds} ~(requirement against discrimination. Instead and extensive state-federal sharing in the ,: á it adopted and the defendants participated common plan” inherent.in the Hill-Burtoná á Jr in aáplan for meeting those responsibilities program’s functioning. The test for what con-á á by permitting its share of Hill-Burton funds stitutes “state action” is different now; this is. : .to go to existing private institutions. The discussed further in chapter 14.J ááappropriation of such funds to the Cone and ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ á Long Hospitals effectively limits Hill-Burton Moreover, the [Federal] Government’sá funds available in the future to create non-argument stresses the fact that the chal-á ,segregated facilities in the Greensboro area. lenged discrimination has been affirmatively In these circumstances, the plaintiffs can á sanctioned by both the state and the federal have no effective remedy unless the con-government pursuant to federal law and , stitutional discrimination complained of is regulation ¥¥¥¥ These federal provisions . _ , . forbidden. undertaking to authorize segregation by The order of the District Court is reversed. state-connected institutions are unconstitu-[Two judges joined the chief judge’s opinion, . tional.. , ¥ Unconstitutional as well under the .forming a narrow majority; two judges dis-Due Process Clause of the fifth Amendment sented, ‘1b]elieving the majority both unprec-and the Equal Protection Clauáse of the Four-edented and unwarranted.”] teenth are the relevant regulations imple-. menting this passage in the statute. á [The court discusses the hospitals’ coun¥ terarguments and dismisses them.] Not only ¥ Note: Internal citations have been omitted from this and all other The Court Decides (continued)
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
